5 ms·
The title is editorialized, which goes against the HN rules. Linking to tweets is challenging, as there’s sometimes not a lot of context, but even the tweet doe
by ejstronge 7y ago
The title is editorialized, which goes against the HN rules. Linking to tweets is challenging, as there’s sometimes not a lot of context, but even the tweet doesn’t go as far as the HN title...
- kspacewalk2 7y agoThe tweet thread/sequence/whatever it's called absolutely does go that far and talks about him fabricating data and figures many times, among many other things.
- qilo 7y agoLiterally the 2nd tweet: As reminder: Raoult's paper on alleged #chloroquine cure of #COVID19 had rigged, omitted or even falsified data and was published without peer review in a journal he controls. Trial was not randomized, controlled or blinded in any way. https://twitter.com/schneiderleonid/status/1242905803188822016 https://twitter.com/schneiderleonid/status/12429058031888220...
- ejstronge 7y agoSorry, I did not have a chance to flesh this out. The current title ('questions data in old paper') is much more reasonable to describe a set of PubPeer comments. I'm not making any claims about the chloroquine study.
- GordonS 7y agoOP here: the chain of tweets goes much, much further than the the title I used, and I certainly wouldn't call it "editorialized" or breaking HN rules. When submitting articles, I almost always use the original title, verbatim; but as you point out, that's seldom possible with tweets - TBH, I think the title I submitted was pretty reasonable.